There was a quote in there from Cashman that I thought was pretty telling about how Nick was thought of throughout MLB. Paraphrased: "if you had a missed call from Nick, you were returning that call"Notes column today with tributes from Abraham, cashman, mcadam and Bob nightengale.
I think that could be said of 99% of the posting feuds on SoSH. There's something lost in using the written word to define a person. I've been to a couple west coast SoSH bashes and a couple of guys who I thought were going to be complete douchebags were not only great guys, but we were hugging it out and taking pictures with each other by the end.I have no doubt in my mind that if I sat down and had a beer or two with Cafardo, I would walk away thinking that he was the nicest guy in the world and doesn't deserve half the shit I gave him.
I am happy you engaged on the elephant in this thread, largely ignored since Nick’s death. I like your post.I don't want to come across as crass or talking ill of the dead, because I'm not. But I'm not quite sure that I buy all of what SJH is selling above.
Yes, it appears that Nick Cafardo was a lovely, lovely person. Someone who watched out for his writer brethren and someone who spoke to just about everyone, no matter if you were the Spring Training janitor or Brian Cashman. That is the headline right there: Nick Cafardo is a great guy. And it sucks that we lose great people, especially when we can use more of them. I have no doubt in my mind that if I sat down and had a beer or two with Cafardo, I would walk away thinking that he was the nicest guy in the world and doesn't deserve half the shit I gave him. And, to be truthful he didn't. It's a cliche by now, but sometimes when you're pecking away at the keyboard, you forget that these people are real and that they're doing the best that they can. I don't think that Cafardo ever intended to write about things that I vehemently disagreed with and maybe the better thing would be to cancel my subscription and read something else, so that's on me.
But death doesn't change the fact that Cafardo didn't really do his readers right. Or at least I don't think that he did and maybe I'm wrong. However, I don't think that favoring sources that speak to you and demonizing ones that don't is a good policy. I don't think that shitting on baseball analytics and proudly saying that you will never learn about them is wrong. You can be the best person in the world, and it sounds like Cafardo was certainly up there in that regard, but proud ignorance should never be something that you're remembered fondly for (and in a number of remembrances, he was). Especially if you're a reporter. And double especially if you're the national baseball guy for a large newspaper.
The human side of baseball is important. No doubt about that. But at the same time, so are the numbers that make up that game. And there are way more people on this board who are more numbers orientated than I am. For better or worse, baseball (and all sports) is now very number driven. To find a bully pulpit and rail against week after week after week, isn't right.
I don't know. It really does suck that Nick Cafardo died--and strangely, I've been thinking about it a lot. I'm just not sure that he was the best at what he did.
Well said.I don't want to come across as crass or talking ill of the dead, because I'm not. But I'm not quite sure that I buy all of what SJH is selling above.
Yes, it appears that Nick Cafardo was a lovely, lovely person. Someone who watched out for his writer brethren and someone who spoke to just about everyone, no matter if you were the Spring Training janitor or Brian Cashman. That is the headline right there: Nick Cafardo is a great guy. And it sucks that we lose great people, especially when we can use more of them. I have no doubt in my mind that if I sat down and had a beer or two with Cafardo, I would walk away thinking that he was the nicest guy in the world and doesn't deserve half the shit I gave him. And, to be truthful he didn't. It's a cliche by now, but sometimes when you're pecking away at the keyboard, you forget that these people are real and that they're doing the best that they can. I don't think that Cafardo ever intended to write about things that I vehemently disagreed with and maybe the better thing would be to cancel my subscription and read something else, so that's on me.
But death doesn't change the fact that Cafardo didn't really do his readers right. Or at least I don't think that he did and maybe I'm wrong. However, I don't think that favoring sources that speak to you and demonizing ones that don't is a good policy. I don't think that shitting on baseball analytics and proudly saying that you will never learn about them is wrong. You can be the best person in the world, and it sounds like Cafardo was certainly up there in that regard, but proud ignorance should never be something that you're remembered fondly for (and in a number of remembrances, he was). Especially if you're a reporter. And double especially if you're the national baseball guy for a large newspaper.
The human side of baseball is important. No doubt about that. But at the same time, so are the numbers that make up that game. And there are way more people on this board who are more numbers orientated than I am. For better or worse, baseball (and all sports) is now very number driven. To find a bully pulpit and rail against week after week after week, isn't right.
I don't know. It really does suck that Nick Cafardo died--and strangely, I've been thinking about it a lot. I'm just not sure that he was the best at what he did.
Snarking on a man who passed away months ago is pretty patheticI have found it interesting that no one on the present Globe staff ever mentions the name Scott Boras, let alone offers one of Scott's opinions or quotes.
Nick certainly cultivated that relationship for better or worse.
I'm not sensing any snark in Humphrey's comment, E5, for what it's worth.Snarking on a man who passed away months ago is pretty pathetic
Noting the "coincidence" that once Cafardo died, Boras references disappeared from the baseball pages is a backhanded way of jabbing Cafardo for over-quoting Boras. It serves little to no purpose, other than to bring attention, months after he died, to what some felt was one of Cafardo's shortcomingsI'm not sensing any snark in Humphrey's comment, E5, for what it's worth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY
Not to speak for Humphrey, but I thought he was saying that a valuable contact from the business side of baseball has been lost with Nick's passing. I took it as more of a condemnation of the remaining baseball writers for failing to cultivate a relationship with the most powerful agent in their sport.Noting the "coincidence" that once Cafardo died, Boras references disappeared from the baseball pages is a backhanded way of jabbing Cafardo for over-quoting Boras. It serves little to no purpose, other than to bring attention, months after he died, to what some felt was one of Cafardo's shortcomings
Couldn't have added a better postscript to my comments.Not only that, but a guy like Boras certainly knows how to work the press to create leverage for his clients. What does it say about the importance of the Globe nowadays that he hasn't bothered to replace Carfado?
Good for him. Glad to see this.Cafardo posthumously won the 2020 Spink Award: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/12/10/late-boston-globe-writer-nick-cafardo-wins-baseball-spink-award/rmWmQI2t3KBhZslBkDC91L/story.html
And on the same week that it was announced Nick would be posthumously honored by the Hall of Fame, a long Silverman article about Boras.Maybe Boras is trolling the board...all of a sudden he was in McWilliams' column today